Many moons ago when I was an art student in Switzerland, we would often go to the Natural History Museum in la Chaux-de-Fonds to sketch some of the animals. Coming from a school in the UK where trips would invariably end up in the Natural History Museum in London, this Swiss equivalent was somewhat underwhelming.
More a collection of flea-bitten dead animals than a museum, these trips were enough to turn me off taxidermy for good. However, some part of my subconscious was obviously paying attention because now I find myself very intrigued by these taxidermy diaporamas.
Definitely morbid and without doubt very bizarre, what's your take on these pieces of dead art? For me, I love the look and composition of these pieces, but does using actual dead animals really bring something extra to the table?
Walter Potter
Les Deux Garçons
Amanda's Autopsies
They are all -except the standup dead doggy!!- replaceable by anything/anybody else, so somewhat funny to look at but not art
ReplyDelete@Jetty Bindels
ReplyDeleteExactly! It's funny and a bit strange, but using real animals is just for the 'shock' value I think. No real artistic reason at all.